The act of a young Tunisian man, setting himself on fire, sparked a series of changes in the Arab world, toppling dictatorships and bringing the people, oppressed for years, to the streets. There is a wave of demands for democracy and effective popular participation, the outcome and scale of which are not yet known or measurable, as the oligarchies resist the clamor for change. One thing, however, is already certain: nothing will be the same in those countries.
In other corners where democratic standards are higher, revolutions tend to be silent but continually unfold through inevitable changes within society. Law has become an essential mechanism for maintaining the democratic system, given this continuous evolutionary movement. Combined with other forms of knowledge, but through it, community life is imbued with greater rationality, allowing for more harmony in intersubjective coexistence.
In Brazil, Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004 significantly expanded the jurisdiction of the Labor Courts. Through it, integrity was restored to the most social of branches of legal science, taking a further step toward consolidating the promises of the Constitution. The unequivocal purpose of this reform is that disputes affecting the world of work, in their individual, collective, and administrative dimensions, be submitted to the Special Courts, whose vocation, proven by its history, is to preserve the standard of civility for those who make their living from work.
More than five years after the profound expansion of jurisdiction, the implementation of the constitutional advance has encountered a series of obstacles. The Judiciary itself has great difficulty understanding the true direction of the changes. This is easily seen in certain decisions of the Superior Courts, which restrict the employment relationship to the concept of employment, as well as in suppressing the jurisdiction of public servants to even smaller spheres than existed before the advent of the aforementioned Constitutional Amendment. Horizontally, the situation is no different. A recent example was widely reported in the press, when the ordinary Federal Court issued decisions regarding the airline industry strike. This constitutes a clear invasion of jurisdiction, as the exercise of the right to strike is constitutionally enshrined, and any related discussion falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Court.
It is fundamental that a rule of law requires compliance with the constitutional order by all. However, it demands even more, if that is possible, of those who comprise the Judiciary, as they are expected to safeguard and guarantee this same order. The expected stance of the law enforcer has never been as creative as it is in these post-positivist times. Legal science no longer allows for a passive approach from the Judiciary, limited to the sad figure of the "mouth of the law." On the contrary, it demands commitment to what is current, new, and capable of making constitutional promises concrete. The entire judiciary must recognize this requirement, since, in its positive dimension, fundamental rights largely depend on it for their realization. Therefore, strict adherence to the redivision of the distinct jurisdictional powers ultimately lies at the heart of the very question of the legitimacy of the entire Judiciary as a branch of government.
Editorial Board